Glorifying War

[zespri]

I think you misunderstood: Misery's point is that CoD et al. put on the airs of being realistic but really, really aren't
(BLOODY SCREEN! so real!)

Ah. That's what was meant. Yeah, you are right I did misunderstand.

[Wingflier]

Both Counterstrike and Day of Defeat were excellent for me, personally, back in the day.  I have not played the more modern iterations, but in college I sunk a goodly amount of time into both those games with my roommate and wife.

The modern iteration of Counter-Strike honestly isn't that much different from CS 1.6.  It's got a better engine, improved graphics, and a nice matchmaking system.  I spent many of my teenage years playing Counter-Strike as well.  It was a wonderful game for its time and it's nice to see that they brought it well into the 21st Century.  Even though its fundamental tenets have never changed, it's still better than every other modern FPS out there in my opinion. 

One thing is the same though, if you want to be any good at it, you have to invest a lot of time or else you'll just be target practice.  I can see why most people from our generation have probably stopped playing it by now due to time-consuming jobs and families.  This is why I've intentionally opted out of parenthood.  Hey, I can't stay a kid forever, but I can certainly try!

The biggest improvement from old school CS is the addition of matchmaking.  Being able to play with people of roughly your skill level (on both teams) lessens the learning curve quite considerably, and makes every match extremely interesting, visceral, and intense.  Every round seems to matter a lot more.  There are still some problems with it, but it's a welcome addition.

I'm glad there are older generations of gamers still making games though.  I find that the games made while I was still coming into adulthood, such as CS and DotA as well are much better than what the best modern minds have been able to create.

[Misery]

In terms of the "older games being harder", sometimes I think that's just nostalgia coming out from when we were kids.  We weren't as good at games back then.  Doom may have seemed difficult then, but I think if you played it again you may be a bit disappointed.  That isn't to take away from Doom, because it was an absolute marvel and achievement for the FPS genre.  I grew up playing that game.  I'm just not convinced that it's difficulty is as extreme as you're making it out to be.

Yeah, I've gotten this arguement from people before, but it falls flat for me for the very simple reason that I frequently still actually play all of those older titles.  It's not just nostalgia in my case.  Hell, you should see my setup here.... I've got the two screens and the PC and all these damn cables..... and then right in the middle of the desk is this ancient Atari 7800 unit.  It's not there just to look pretty, it's there because it gets alot of frequent use (though mostly with the 2600 library, of which I have a gazillion). Cartridges everywhere.  The same goes for the NES and a few others.  Heck, I bring some of the NES games with me when travelling at times, as I have one of them funky gizmos meant for playing them on the go.

So their frequent use is where I get all of that from, not just mere nostalgia.  Quite a number of the games I have now I actually didn't have way back when, as I couldnt buy them on my own back when I was a kid, but now I can grab them when I want them, so I keep getting more.

I'm not one that would count on pure nostalgia for anything anyway;  my memory is too messed up for that.

Granted, the games back then arent like, really stupidly absurdly hard, but part of my point is that alot of players, taken from THIS era and given many of those older ones to play, often think that they ARE really stupidly absurdly hard.  WHich showcases the low difficulty of many games these days.  It's also why I myself tend not to be very interested in alot of mainstream titles.  As far as I'm concerned, easy=boring.

It's true that most of these modern FPS games attempt to be realistic but fail in some (or many) fundamental ways.  It's also true that their "single-player campaigns" are extremely silly and pointless.  However, to be fair, most people know that these games (CoD, Battlefield, Halo, etc.) are made more for their online multiplayer aspect than anything else.  The single player campaign is really just a tertiary concern.  You could argue that the multiplayer aspect is really subpar as well, but that's where most the production values went, so if you want to judge the quality of the game, you should probably focus on that. 

I'm curious about what you think of a game like CS:GO?  There is no single player campaign to speak of.  They didn't waste their time or pretend to make a decent campaign (which we all know Valve can make).  They simply stuck with the multiplayer aspect and let the game stand on its own merits.

Taking a look at all your requirements:

1. There is no pointless "cover system".  You can't lean out from walls or press a button to "stick" to a box.  You can hide behind walls to avoid fire if you want, but you can do that in any FPS game (including Doom).  However, many of the high powered weapons can penetrate through think surfaces, so often times even that won't save you.

2. You can't regenerate health at any time during the round.  Once you've taken damage, you stay permanently hurt until the round is over or you die. 

3. You don't respond until the round is over, so there's a realistic portrayal of death and loss.  If you die without inflicting any damage on the enemy team, you've just become a a serious burden on your own by basically giving them an extra enemy to fight.

4. All your opponents are human, so you can't complain the the "AI is dumb".  The matchmaking system pairs you with people (on your team and theirs) which are similar to your skill level.  Typically you'll be pushed to your limits every game.

5.  There are ~20 official levels, with more coming, and countless user-created levels to play on community servers.  Granted, the levels aren't huge, and you'll end up playing on them a lot, but even after a dozen times, there are still new places to find, tricks to discover, and strategies to learn.  There's much more to discover, for example, than playing the first level of Doom 2 for the thousandth time.

Sniping is there, of course.  Aren't you the one who wanted realism?  Though it actually requires quite a bit of skill to die against good player because the zoomed out crosshair has been removed.  In addition, sniper rifles are extremely expensive to buy, and don't offer the same monetary rewards for killing people as the other weapons.  Cheap items like Flashbangs and Smoke Grenades make it much easier to deal with these players when necessary.  If you kill them as well, they are at a huge disadvantage because they'll be broke.

Yes, you can only carry a few weapons at a time (per round), but every new round allows you to purchase a whole new set of weapons.  With a whole assortment of pistols, shotguns, sub-machineguns, machine guns, assault rifles, sniper rifles, and grenades to choose from, your arsenal is much larger than in any single-player FPS I've ever played. 

So I think there are games that strive for realism and do it successfully while still keeping things balanced and fun.  Not all games are the CoD/BF/Halo equivalent, and I agree with you, those games are awful.  I just disagree that it's the only thing we're stuck with.

Oh, I'm not saying that literally ALL FPS games these days are like the ones I was ranting about.... but it's enough of them to be by far the majority, and even those that dont exactly follow those annoying trends are at least influenced by them, which is still..... obnoxious.

For single-player VS multiplayer, I dont generally compare the two that much.  I'm mostly thinking of the actual mechanics instead, unless considering the actual design of the levels themselves (the linearity and such).   I can only say so much about the multiplayer, as this was always a single-player genre to me.  Multiplayer in one of these, for me, would be..... ehhhhhh.  Let's just say I'd likely not be very good at it.  My skill in the Doom-style ones (and in so many other types of games) is mostly the ability to dodge absolutely everything, even at point-blank range when it doesnt necesarily make sense to BE at point-blank range (punch the Cyberdemon!!!), and the point-blank part comes as a result of my horrible aim otherwise.  Think of Rambo, spraying bullets everywhere at random angles, except many times more inaccurate.  Many, many times more.   I always say, I couldnt hit the broad side of a barn (or any side) from inside the barn.   Cant aim worth a crap.  Though me being the way I am I just charge at everything anyway, so that works out well enough. 

But yeah, I can only say so much about the multiplayer experience.   CS in particular I'm not at all familiar with, so I've no opinion overall on that one.


As for the bit about realism..... nnnnnno, I'm pretty sure it wasnt me that wanted realism here.... I was just complaining about how CoD and it's brethren CLAIM realism but then put in elements like soldiers standing still for 10 seconds behind a box, allowing them to totally heal multiple gunshot wounds.... stuff like that.  But I myself dont actually care for or need realism in gaming, really.  Doom and such, for example.  "Let's fight the endless armies of Hell with a shotgun!!!" always sounds way more interesting than "do soldiery things", which usually sums up my thoughts on military-type games.

[madcow]

Killing Floor is probably my favorite (and I think really only more or less) FPS that I play these days. It's more of a cooperative arena shooter though.  i've dabbled in others, but the whole 2 weapon limit is just so annoying, I also feel like it discourages you to play with guns or pick guns for fun, as you have to take certain guns to be viable. Eg, I started bioshock infinite (quit because of the combat and setting really irritated me - its no rapture), and you basically needed one close-combat gun and one ranged gun, no room left if you want for instance to mess around with a grenade launcher.

[x4000]

@Wingflier: Very good info on CS, thanks for that -- very cool. I can see the matchmaking being really useful, although back in the day I don't recall having too much trouble with servers being too hard.  I died plenty, but could often come in the top 3 or 5 on a lot of the servers.  Over time you'd just kind of learn which ones to frequent.  I particularly liked playing that one with the canyon and the hostages inside the building with the sewers leading up to near it, and that big open sniper stretch if you rush the front door.  I must have 100 hours on that one map, easy.

Where I really felt the difficulty pinch was on Unreal Tournament (the original) servers.  I'm a pretty good FPS player, but man the people there who would just be translocating all over the place were incredibly annoying.  And those who were effective with the goo gun or that gun with the ricocheting sawblades would just be savaging me in a lot of arenas.  Playing distant worlds 1 or 2, and that lava level with the two castles and the mountain with tunnels in the middle, were the only ones I was particularly good at on public servers.  And there I was mostly a support role, or doing something cheesy like having fun sniping (but hey, I could get multi-unstoppable with that before getting taken out, often hugely suppressing the other team and even the other snipers.  Hiding halfway down the building on the side was something most people seemed not to look for.)

But yeah, I feel really out of place with FPS games in public servers these days, as I just don't have the same skills anymore (or if I do, then the bar has definitely raised; hard to say which, as I'm still about the same skill in solo play).  I've been really enjoying Left 4 Dead 2 with my wife for several years now, but we just play it casually when we feel like shooting something and having a fun tense time in one of the scenarios.  I run a local server while we play, and we mostly play just as two people ignoring the questionable AI partners.

For me that's still plenty fun, and it gets me what I would want out of an FPS game.  Other than that, occasionally playing things like the Far Cry games and similar are really fun.  I like creeping around in the jungle and storming strongholds and such, and I like the general sandboxy nature.  Enemies that respawn at checkpoints in FC2 didn't bother me, because I was always happy to have someone to shoot each time.  Pffffh realism.   There is also nothing quite like driving fast up to a bridge with a large checkpoint on the far side, jumping out of the jeep so that it speeds into the checkpoint, then using your three rockets to just wreck the other side.

Perhaps ironically, given the sorts of games I make, it was always public PVP strategy games that I had no hope in.  I was a lot more competitive in FPS games.

[madcow]

By the way, if you like left 4 dead, look up killing floor sometime. They're both cooperative zombie shooters. Though the differences end there - I find KF the more enjoyable of the two myself.

[Cyborg]

  I particularly liked playing that one with the canyon and the hostages inside the building with the sewers leading up to near it, and that big open sniper stretch if you rush the front door.  I must have 100 hours on that one map, easy.

cs_militia


Coincidently, that is also my favorite.

[Wingflier]

By the way, if you like left 4 dead, look up killing floor sometime. They're both cooperative zombie shooters. Though the differences end there - I find KF the more enjoyable of the two myself.

Killing Floor is definitely the best zombie shooter on the market right now, which is ironic considering how many have come up since it's release (including L4D2 I think).  It's constantly being refined and improved, and maybe that in itself is what makes it so good.

Chris, if you like LFD2, please try No More Room in Hell and Killing Floor. 

I have some extra copies of Killing Floor on hand, and NMRH is a free HL2 mod that is available on Steam.  You can get KF for just a few dollars during sales that happen frequently throughout the year.

[Draco18s]

On the other hand, Killing Floor has its own flaws.

Namely,

1) Inability to make private games (this may have changed since I played)
2) As a new player, playing with experienced players is a Not Fun experience.  You learn nothing, get no money, and die.  As the game gets more difficult, you die faster, and as money is fundamentally NOT SHARED, you end up farther and farther behind.

These two factors combined turned me off after about 45 minutes playing with a friend.  We were alone for all of 10 minutes before being joined by two players who were much better than we were and got pushed out of our own game because we sucked.

All I can say is:
Thank god we pirated it.  Would have been the worst purchase I'd ever made on a game, right after Dungeons.

[Wingflier]

On the other hand, Killing Floor has its own flaws.

Namely,

1) Inability to make private games (this may have changed since I played)
2) As a new player, playing with experienced players is a Not Fun experience.  You learn nothing, get no money, and die.  As the game gets more difficult, you die faster, and as money is fundamentally NOT SHARED, you end up farther and farther behind.

These two factors combined turned me off after about 45 minutes playing with a friend.  We were alone for all of 10 minutes before being joined by two players who were much better than we were and got pushed out of our own game because we sucked.

All I can say is:
Thank god we pirated it.  Would have been the worst purchase I'd ever made on a game, right after Dungeons.

Errr...

1) Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that you were using a pirated copy...

As far as I know, someone with a legitimate copy of the game has always been able to host.  This includes the ability to make single player games as well.

2) I don't know of any FPS or even zombie shooter where pitting a noob with a bunch of veterans turns out to be enjoyable for either party.  Joining a hard-difficulty game that is open to the public is a really, really bad idea for new players.

Perhaps if you had spent the $2.50 (on the Steam sale) or the $1 (on the recent Humble Bundle sale) to actually buy the game, it would have made more sense to you.

If you do try it again, start out by playing only with your close friends (or by yourself) on the easiest difficulty, and on the longest setting. (Easy/Long). I advise you not to join public servers until you have a feel for the game.  Besides it's made to play with friends, and classically, that's how we have enjoyed it best.

Easy mode is...well incredibly easy.

[madcow]

Yeah, it does have its flaws.

The leveling meta is another one I do not care for. And there are some bugs I experience with it from time to time. Still, its still in my opinion the best zombie shooter out there. I typically pull it out for a good play every time they do the holiday zombie reskins.

For being a zombie FPS, it relies on tactics a great deal as well, which is a plus. At the higher difficulties, cooperation is pretty much essential too.

[Wingflier]

We played a game just a couple days ago.  There were 6 of us in total but 4 of us playing knew each other.  We were on the 10th wave, it was on "hard" difficulty.  Typically, hard would have been easy for us, but I was messing around a lot with some of the weapons I had never used.  I ran out of ammo with like 300 guys to go.  My friend playing firebug tossed me a fully loaded Mac-10, which was better than nothing, but pretty weak because it no longer did the fire damage.

Anyway, it got down to like 3 of us about halfway through the wave.  We had to run, kite, and heal each other like mad just to survive.  We pulled out every gun we had and had to make every shot count.

One of my friends was a Bezerker on previous rounds and had died with his Katana.  He had switched to Medic after a noob on the server who had picked it up for him was unable to figure out how to drop a weapon *facepalm*.

We barely survived the final wave.  We were down to the last guy and running to the trader.  The last guy happened to be a Scrake.  A Scrake for 3 veteran players is like stealing candy from a baby.  However, a perfect combination of factors caused that one Scrake to cause us to lose the entire game.

1. We were all 3 completely out of ammo except for a couple shots with crappy pistols.
2. I wasn't aware that we were all completely out of ammo. It wouldn't have taken many shots to kill it.
3. I threw 3 grenades at its feet (as a Demo) thinking it would get it low enough to kill with a few shots from anybody...except nobody had ammo.
4. My Firebug friend had one shot left with his flare pistol, and against a charging Scrake, he missed. 
5. Because my friend missed, the charging Scrake killed him. 
6. My Medic friend had no ammo, but had the noob known how to drop the Katana, he could have killed him.  Since he didn't, he died too.
7. Now it's running towards me, and I haven't had any ammo since like 2 minutes into the round.  I have 3 shots in my pistol.  I'm screwed.

And that's how 3 veteran played killed 400+ monsters (including several Fleshpounds [the Tank equivalent in L4D]) and died to a lowly Scrake because of fail coordination

[Draco18s]

Errr...

1) Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that you were using a pirated copy...

As far as I know, someone with a legitimate copy of the game has always been able to host.  This includes the ability to make single player games as well.

Perhaps if you had spent the $2.50 (on the Steam sale) or the $1 (on the recent Humble Bundle sale) to actually buy the game, it would have made more sense to you.

May have.  Mind, this was also waaay back when it was new.  You didn't "get it on sale for $2.50" you "got it on sale for $15."  And for a game that has no demo available, I sure as hell wasn't dropping money on it without trying it first.

2) I don't know of any FPS or even zombie shooter where pitting a noob with a bunch of veterans turns out to be enjoyable for either party.  Joining a hard-difficulty game that is open to the public is a really, really bad idea for new players.

Hard difficulty!  Fcuking christ man, we were on easy!  We'd get through maybe two waves!

I also love how they decided that the Bestest Idea in the World for the first special infected to show up was one that's freaking invisible.

If you do try it again, start out by playing only with your close friends (or by yourself) on the easiest difficulty, and on the longest setting. (Easy/Long).

Or you know....not.
"First person shooters" are not my genre, never have been.  I have enjoyed games like Half Life 2 and Deus Ex despite this, but I would never pick up a spunk-garggle-weewee game for the multiplayer aspect.  Especially competitive ones.  I don't have the time, energy, or friend-free-time-overlap to devote to it.

Killing Floor is a passive-aggressive kind of competitive shooter, too.  It unsubtly rewards the people who do well with bigger bonuses and the noob who dies early?  He's just fucked.  There is no blue shell.

[Wingflier]

As I said, it's meant to be played with people of a similar skill level.

Most FPS games are.  In fact, I'd say that there's very few that don't fall into that category. 

Yes, people who get more kills get more money, but you can also share money, so if your team is coordinated (i.e. friends), you'll have a much better chance of survival.  Classes like Medic, who heal others don't make nearly as much as those who are mowing down waves of zombies.  They sometimes rely on their team for a little extra cash.  Good players know this and will help them out if necessary.

I'm not sure what you're looking for.  Any game that rewards skill typically comes with some heavy drawbacks, look at AI War.  Killing Floor to me is the perfect blend of competitive and casual.  On easy difficulty, playing with friends, it's nearly impossible to lose once you know what you're doing (a few games), but still challenging enough to be fun.  On the hardest difficulty, even a team of extremely experienced players will be challenged.  Each map has a varying difficulty as well (maps that are closed off with narrow passages tend to be harder in general).

What I like about it is that it's one of the few AI-driven games in which the "perfect" difficulty can be found for your group of friends fairly quickly.  Once you've all found that happy medium, you can continue to challenge yourself and raise your perk levels until you can handle something harder.  It's very rare that AI-driven games offer this kind of feature.

[Cyborg]

I have enjoyed games like Half Life 2 and Deus Ex despite this, but I would never pick up a spunk-garggle-weewee...

You don't say...